Talk:John Albert Gardner

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Notability[edit]

There really is not enough to support an article about Gardner. Everything is covered in the King article. As such I will redirect to the King article. If there is a point the article can include something other than items covered in the King article, I will support his own. Perhaps, if he is tied to the other missing children in the area, that would be a good time to expand this article. You may want to take a look at WP:SINGLEEVENT. Thanks, and my best to you. ttonyb (talk) 23:51, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel that way, then take the proper steps. Bypassing discussion usually leads to ANI--Jojhutton (talk) 00:14, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If I have generated ill feelings by removing the article, you have my apologies, but threating an ANI is not a way to generate consensus. I have specified a section that covers the issue and I thought covered the issues at hand. It would be appreciated that instead of you ignoring my comments and reacting to the removal of the article, you comment on the section I referred to. ttonyb (talk) 00:31, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, you say that you would have appreciated a comment, yet you earlier decided to bypass policy and redirect an article, without notifying the article's creator. Thats not exactly tit for tat, now is it? As to the subject of the article, it is still in its earlier stages, and as the weeks pass, more will be revealed.
Bottom line, you decided on your own that this article is not worthy, so you got rid of it.
I bever threatened ANI, only mentioned that this type of behavior usually leads that way.--Jojhutton (talk) 00:43, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So, I'll take a deep breath and promise to do better. 8-) I feel better. So, do you not agree that WP:SINGLEEVENT applies? I would suggest the article be redirected to the King article and rewritten if there is more that surfaces about the him. BTW - What policy are you referring to? I saw you stated something about an AfD, but I was a unsure how you see that it applies to a redirect. ttonyb (talk) 00:53, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am struggling to find this "policy" that states a redirect requires notification of the article's creator. I think WP:BOLD pretty much covers such redirects. WWGB (talk) 03:33, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dubois' corpse has been found; she was almost certainly murdered. Gardner is a convicted sex offender who is suspected of having committed two separate murders. Therefore this is not a one-event issue. All the info about the Dubois case should not be on Murder of Chelsea King, as it is a separate case, albeit that the media and police are linking Gardner to both cases. I believe this article's existence is justified. Jim Michael (talk) 10:09, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is no evidence that Gardner is involved in the Dubois disappearance, nor has there been any verification that she was murdered. Any tie-in at this point is speculation. Until there is confirmation by the police, speculation is not enough to support the article. Let's not jump the gun. ttonyb (talk) 10:16, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable sources have stated that the police are looking into a conection, which is exactly what is stated in the article. No one has written that he killed Dubois, but the link is notable enough for inclusion, especially since there are plenty of reliable sources making the link.
I also removed the "Notabilty" tag. I think that you are misinterpreting the policy. The policy states that If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article.. Which this article does, since there is not a line in the article that doesn't have a reliable source.--Jojhutton (talk) 12:43, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it is notable and should stay. This guy was on the verge of being a serial killer if he wasn't stopped.

Conviction(s)[edit]

Has he only ever been convicted of one offense? Jim Michael (talk) 10:16, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to news reports and police, yes. ttonyb (talk) 10:18, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Amber Dubois[edit]

I was thinking about starting a section on Amber Dubois, since [this reliable source] states that he is a suspect in her murder. I don't think that we need to wait until he is charged, do we? Just the reliable sources discussing that he is the main suspect should be enough. Any thoughts?--Jojhutton (talk) 00:43, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure it warrants a section, yet. There is not that much out there about this development. It looks as if he may be charged and at that time I would say, yes. Also if he is changed with the abduction/murder when I would support removing the merge tag based on his serial crimes. ttonyb (talk) 01:52, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is precident for this action. I don't think he needs to be charged. Also ther is National Story that pretty much sums it up.--Jojhutton (talk) 13:11, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename[edit]

Considering there are a number of John Gardners out there, I suggest renaming it to [[John Albert Gardner (killer)], or perhaps "Murderer", or perhaps "Serial killer". it would help distinguish him further and it would stand out in a search.

I do not agree, he is listed on a disambiguation page and his full name is not duplicated by another article. Adding killer or murder would only act as a description. ttonyb (talk) 17:59, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree with you that his name isn't duplicated, some people may not associate him with the him being "jogging rapist" or whatever they locally call him. --Hourick (talk) 18:44, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In local news reports he is not referred to as the "jogging rapist" or any like term. He is referred to by his full name, John Albert Gardner, or Chelsea King's killer. ttonyb (talk) 18:46, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly suggest changing the name of this entry to "Murders of Chelsea King and Amber Dubois", or something similar. Wikipedia entries are typically reserved for notable individuals or individuals who have participated in a notable event. John Gardner isn't notable, and hasn't done anything worth noting, and most of the attention that this case has received has little if anything to do with Gardner, and more to do with the response of Chelsea King's parents. I realize it's a more common practice to head the victims of multiple murders under the name of their killers, but because there are only two known victims at this point, both of whom have impending laws named after them, and because John Gardner doesn't show any particular promise even as a figure of psychological study, it would be more appropriate to head this page with the names of Chelsea King and Amber Dubois. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.201.130.183 (talk) 05:50, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Amber Dubois, insensitive[edit]

I clicked on a link for Amber Dubois, from another article, and I have been redirected to this article about her killer. I will remove the link I clicked but I fear there is some redirection type code somewhere that I don't know about. I'm sure it's an oversight and not technically against the rules, but it is incredibly callous to her family and friends, don't we think? Imagine if someone typed it in, for heaven's sake. Would someone remedy this as a matter of utmost importance? Thank you.86.162.37.228 (talk) 03:15, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe cuz there is nothing interesting about Dubois other than the fact that she got raped and killed. I don't see how this is important. She is only notable on account of the guy that killed her. Republic of Texas (talk) 03:03, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There was another article about Chelsea King, but it was WP:AFD as a merge with this article, as they are only notable for her deaths (at least for the standards of wikipedia), but Gardner was convicted of two murders.--Jojhutton (talk) 03:22, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on John Albert Gardner. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:22, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on John Albert Gardner. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:51, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sexual Abuse[edit]

He said in an interview around the time he was convicted that he was molested by a female family member who was not his mother. Is there a reason there's no mention of it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.52.47.40 (talk) 20:20, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:John_Albert_Gardner&oldid=1205086294"